Application accuracy in frameless image-guided neurosurgery: a comparison study of three patient-to-image registration methods

2007 ◽  
Vol 106 (6) ◽  
pp. 1012-1016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A. Woerdeman ◽  
Peter W. A. Willems ◽  
Herke J. Noordmans ◽  
Cornelis A. F. Tulleken ◽  
Jan Willem Berkelbach van der Sprenkel
Keyword(s):  
Image Registration ◽  
Target Location ◽  
Imaging Modality ◽  
Fiducial Marker ◽  
Optical Tracking ◽  
Surface Matching ◽  
Frameless Stereotaxy ◽  
Anatomical Landmarks ◽  
Registration Method ◽  
Image Guided

Object The aim of this study was to compare three patient-to-image registration methods in frameless stereotaxy in terms of their application accuracy (the accuracy with which the position of a target can be determined intraoperatively). In frameless stereotaxy, imaging information is transposed to the surgical field to show the spatial position of a localizer or surgical instrument. The mathematical relationship between the image volume and the surgical working space is calculated using a rigid body transformation algorithm, based on point-pair matching or surface matching. Methods Fifty patients who were scheduled to undergo a frameless image-guided neurosurgical procedure were included in the study. Prior to surgery, the patients underwent either computerized tomography (CT) scanning or magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with widely distributed adhesive fiducial markers on the scalp. An extra fiducial marker was placed on the head as a target, as near as possible to the intracranial lesion. Prior to each surgical procedure, an optical tracking system was used to perform three separate patient-to-image registration procedures, using anatomical landmarks, adhesive markers, or surface matching. Subsequent to each registration, the target registration error (TRE), defined as the Euclidean distance between the image space coordinates and world space coordinates of the target marker, was determined. Independent of target location or imaging modality, mean application accuracy (± standard deviation) was 2.49 ± 1.07 mm when using adhesive markers. Using the other two registration strategies, mean TREs were significantly larger (surface matching, 5.03 ± 2.30 mm; anatomical landmarks, 4.97 ± 2.29 mm; p < 0.001 for both). Conclusions The results of this study show that skin adhesive fiducial marker registration is the most accurate noninvasive registration method. When images from an earlier study are to be used and accuracy may be slightly compromised, anatomical landmarks and surface matching are equally accurate alternatives.

scholarly journals US/MRI fusion with new optical tracking and marker approach for interventional procedures inside the MRI suite

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 459-462
Author(s):  
Yeshaswini Nagaraj ◽  
Bjoern Menze ◽  
Michael Friebe
Keyword(s):  
Image Registration ◽  
Imaging Modality ◽  
Tracking System ◽  
Optical Tracking ◽  
Line Of Sight ◽  
Optical Tracking System ◽  
The Us ◽  
Phantom Studies ◽  
Inside Out ◽  
Dedicated Mri

AbstractInterventional MRI in closed bore high-field systems is a challenge due to limited space and the need of dedicated MRI compatible equipment and tools. A possible solution could be to perform an ultrasound procedure for guidance of the therapy tools outside the bore, but still on the MRI patient bed. That could track and subsequently combine the superior images of MRI with the real-time features of ultrasound. Conventional optical tracking systems suffer from line of sight issues and electromagnetic tracking does not perform well in the presence of magnetic fields. Hence, to overcome these issues a new optical tracking system called inside-out tracking is used. In this approach, the camera is directly attached to the US probe and the markers are placed onto the patient to achieve the location information of the US slice. The evaluation of our novel system of framed fusion markers can easily be adapted to various imaging modalities without losing image registration. To confirm this evaluation, phantom studies with MRI and US imaging were carried out using a point-registration algorithm along with a similarity measure for fusion. In the inside-out system approach, image registration was found to yield an accuracy of upto 4 mm, depending on the imaging modality and the employed marker arrangement and with that provides an accuracy that cannot be easily achieved by combining pre-operative MRI with live ultrasound.

scholarly journals ROBUST SURFACE-MATCHING REGISTRATION BASED ON THE STRUCTURE INFORMATION FOR IMAGE-GUIDED NEUROSURGERY SYSTEM

2021 ◽  
pp. 2140009
Author(s):  
XINRONG CHEN ◽  
FUMING YANG ◽  
ZIQUN ZHANG ◽  
BAODAN BAI ◽  
LEI GUO
Keyword(s):  
Arbitrary Point ◽  
Point Clouds ◽  
Gaussian Mixture ◽  
Surface Registration ◽  
Surface Matching ◽  
Probability Density Distribution ◽  
Registration Method ◽  
Structure Information ◽  
Registration Error ◽  
Image Guided

Image-to-patient space registration is to make the accurate alignment between the actual operating space and the image space. Although the image-to-patient space registration using paired-point is used in some image-guided neurosurgery systems, the current paired-point registration method has some drawbacks and usually cannot achieve the best registration result. Therefore, surface-matching registration is proposed to solve this problem. This paper proposes a surface-matching method that accomplishes image-to-patient space registration automatically. We represent the surface point clouds by the Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM), which can smoothly approximate the probability density distribution of an arbitrary point set. We also use mutual information as the similarity measure between the point clouds and take into account the structure information of the points. To analyze the registration error, we introduce a method for the estimation of Target Registration Error (TRE) by generating simulated data. In the experiments, we used the point sets of the cranium surface and the model of the human head determined by a CT and laser scanner. The TRE was less than 2[Formula: see text]mm, and the TRE had better accuracy in the front and the posterior region. Compared to the Iterative Closest Point algorithm, the surface registration based on GMM and the structure information of the points proved superior in registration robustness and accurate implementation of image-to-patient registration.

scholarly journals Hybrid TRUS/CT with optical tracking for target delineation in image-guided adaptive brachytherapy for cervical cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 196 (11) ◽  
pp. 983-992
Author(s):  
Stéphanie Smet ◽  
Nicole Nesvacil ◽  
Johannes Knoth ◽  
Alina Sturdza ◽  
Dina Najjari-Jamal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Interobserver Variability ◽  
Imaging Modality ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Optical Tracking ◽  
Conformity Index ◽  
Reference Structure ◽  
Image Guided ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Objective To prospectively compare the interobserver variability of combined transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)/computed tomography (CT)- vs. CT only- vs. magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) only-based contouring of the high-risk clinical target volume (CTVHR) in image-guided adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). Methods Five patients with LACC (FIGO stages IIb–IVa) treated with radiochemotherapy and IGABT were included. CT, TRUS, and T2-weighted MRI images were performed after brachytherapy applicator insertion. 3D-TRUS image acquisition was performed with a customized ultrasound stepper device and software. Automatic applicator reconstruction using optical tracking was performed in the TRUS dataset and TRUS and CT images were fused with rigid image registration with the applicator as reference structure. The CTVHR (based on the GEC-ESTRO recommendations) was contoured by five investigators on the three modalities (CTVHR_CT, CTVHR_TRUS-CT, and CTVHR_MRI). A consensus reference CTVHR_MRI (MRIref) was defined for each patient. Descriptive statistics and overlap measures were calculated using RTslicer (SlicerRT Community and Percutaneous Surgery Laboratory, Queen’s University, Canada), comparing contours of every observer with one another and with the MRIref. Results The interobserver coefficient of variation was 0.18 ± 0.05 for CT, 0.10 ± 0.04 for TRUS-CT, and 0.07 ± 0.03 for MRI. Interobserver concordance in relation to the MRIref expressed by the generalized conformity index was 0.75 ± 0.04 for MRI, 0.51 ± 0.10 for TRUS-CT, and 0.48 ± 0.06 for CT. The mean CTVHR_CT volume of all observers was 71% larger than the MRIref volume, whereas the mean CTVHR_TRUS-CT volume was 15% larger. Conclusion Hybrid TRUS-CT as an imaging modality for contouring the CTVHR in IGABT for LACC is feasible and reproducible among multiple observers. TRUS-CT substantially reduces overestimation of the CTVHR volume of CT alone while maintaining similar interobserver variability.

An automatic registration method for frameless stereotaxy, image guided surgery, and enhanced reality visualization

1996 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
W.E.L. Grimson ◽  
G.J. Ettinger ◽  
S.J. White ◽  
T. Lozano-Perez ◽  
W.M. Wells ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Image Guided Surgery ◽  
Frameless Stereotaxy ◽  
Automatic Registration ◽  
Registration Method ◽  
Guided Surgery ◽  
Image Guided ◽  
Enhanced Reality

Frameless stereotaxy for anterior spinal procedures

2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Langston T. Holly ◽  
Orin Bloch ◽  
Chinyere Obasi ◽  
J. Patrick Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Optical Tracking ◽  
Frameless Stereotaxy ◽  
Anatomical Landmarks ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Registration Error ◽  
The Mean ◽  
K Wires ◽  
Fine Print

Object. Intraoperative image guidance provides real-time three-dimensional visualization and has been successfully applied in many posterior spinal procedures. The feasibility of applying these techniques to anterior spinal surgery has not been studied systematically because the anterior spine, in contrast to the posterior spine, lacks distinct anatomical landmarks for registration. The authors sought to evaluate the practicality of performing stereotaxy in the anterior spine in a cadaveric model. Methods. Unilateral C4—L4 pedicle screws were placed posteriorly in three cadaveric specimens to serve as unknown markers within each vertebral body. The specimens then underwent computerized tomography (CT) scanning, and the CT data were transferred to an optical tracking system. The anterior surface of the spine was registered for use with the stereotactic system by using a paired point—matching technique. Attached to a surgical drill, K-wires were placed under stereotactic guidance in a tip-to-tip orientation with the posterior pedicle screws. A second postoperative CT scan was obtained, and accuracy was determined by measuring the distance between the tips of the K-wire and pedicle screw. The K-wires were placed tip to tip with pedicle screw markers in 57 vertebral levels. The mean registration error was 1.47 ± 0.04 mm, and when combined with the universal instrument registration error of 0.7 mm yielded an overall registration error of 2.17 ± 0.04 mm. The mean tip-to-tip distance for all K-wires placed was 2.46 ± 0.23 mm. The difference between the mean tip-to-tip distance and overall registration error was not statistically significant (p > 0.05), indicating that the K-wires were placed within the expected range of error. Conclusions. The results of this study confirmed the feasibility of performing anterior stereotactic procedures throughout the spine. The accuracy of the findings in this study indicates that anterior stereotaxy should be applicable in clinical practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document